3/3/26: This story has been updated to emphasize that some tariffs were invalidated (IEEPA), but under other statutory authorities, certain tariffs remain, refund opportunities may exist but will be fact-specific and legal-process driven, and the overall trade and tariff environment remains fluid and unlikely to drive lower costs in the short-term.
A U.S. Supreme Court decision has redrawn the lines around presidential trade authority—an outcome with meaningful implications for the printing industry. On February 20, in a 6–3 ruling, the Court determined that President Donald Trump did not have authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad, country-specific tariffs. The majority found that it is unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally set and change tariffs because taxation power clearly belongs to Congress. As a result, several categories of “reciprocal” tariffs and certain import duties tied to fentanyl-related enforcement claims have been invalidated. The decision is narrowly focused on IEEPA. Tariffs imposed under other legal authorities (e.g., Sections 232 and 301) remain in effect and may be expanded. So, while the Court's decision has tightened the boundaries around presidential trade authority, this is not a near-term "all clear" on tariff costs.
Input Costs
Print service providers and converters depend on imported materials and components. Critical inputs include printing plates, finishing equipment, printheads and electronics, media such as vinyl, films, papers, textiles, and specialty substrates, as well as inks and coatings produced or partially manufactured abroad. Tariffs that increased landed costs in these categories have weighed on already tight margins. The removal of the IEEPA tariffs may help stabilize pricing by easing landed costs on certain inputs. Even so, tariffs continue to squeeze already tight margins—especially for small and mid-sized operations.
Potential Refunds
The Supreme Court decision did not guarantee refunds or set refund procedures, leaving implementation to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Importers that paid duties under the invalidated tariffs may pursue refunds through the CIT, but any recovery will be fact-specific and may require litigation or court-directed procedures. Many importers filed protective CIT actions in late 2025 to preserve a clear judicial path to relief if refunds are not extended to non-litigants. Even if refunds are ultimately available, processing large volumes of claims is likely to be a logistical challenge and involve long delays.
Predictability
The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the authority of Congress to set tariff policy. For an industry that makes multi-year investments in presses, finishing lines, and facility expansions, fewer abrupt policy shifts reduce risk and support long-term planning. For printers, predictability is not a luxury—it is essential to competitiveness.
Impacts for Manufacturers and Suppliers
OEMs with global production networks may reassess sourcing, pricing, and logistics strategies in response to the ruling. With the IEEPA-based tariffs invalidated, businesses have clearer guardrails in one area—but the broader trade environment remains fluid, with significant uncertainty from other tariff authorities and potential new actions. Furthermore, it's unlikely that tighter constraints on emergency-based tariffs will drive lower costs in the short-term.
Tariffs Remain a Tool—With Clearer Guardrails
The Court did not eliminate tariffs as a policy instrument. Rather, it clarified that sweeping trade measures require clearer statutory grounding. In response to the Court’s decision, on February 21, President Trump announced that he would increase the global tariff rate from 10% to 15%, the maximum permitted under Section 122. The Administration has indicated that it will use other legal authorities, like Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose tariffs on countries individually based on their trade practices. The Administration could also expand the national security-related tariffs issued on various industries, like steel and aluminum, under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962. But those moves will take some time to prepare.
The Industry Outlook
The Court’s decision narrows one set of tariffs, but it does not resolve broader trade uncertainty. The tariff environment remains fluid. For printing businesses, the ruling raises questions about refunds, the timing and scope of any court-directed implementation, and the potential for new or expanded tariff actions under other legal authorities.
PRINTING United Alliance will continue engaging with Congress and the Administration to advance practical, balanced trade solutions that support the printing industry’s role as a vital part of America’s manufacturing economy. Clear, durable trade policy is essential to protecting jobs, encouraging investment, and ensuring printers have the certainty they need to power growth at home and abroad.
In this article, Stephanie Buka, Government Affairs Manager, PRINTING United Alliance, reports on the Supreme Court ruling on IEEPA tariffs. More information can be found at Business Excellence-Legislation or reach out to Steph should you have additional questions specific to how these issues may affect your business: sbuka@printing.org.
To become a member of the Alliance and learn more about how our subject matter experts can assist your company with services and resources such as those mentioned in this article, please contact the Alliance membership team: 888-385-3588 / membership@printing.org.